No one relishes using animals for experimentation, but the medical community has long insisted that such research helps develop potentially life-saving drugs and treatments. Is this justification compelling enough to continue using animals for medical research?
Oh my goodness! an incredible article dude. Thanks Nevertheless I'm experiencing concern with ur rss . Don?t know why Unable to subscribe to it. Is there anybody getting an identical rss drawback? Anybody who is aware of kindly respond. Thnkx
Vicodin hyoid babies r us coupons babies r us coupons 20 off scaremonger acyclovir inferable
Is it really justified to force animals to suffer to cure diseases that human's brought upon themselves? High cholesterol, diabetes , cancer , have become increasingly common among humans due to their own actions. (Unhealthy eating, pollution, lack of exercise) We continue to move towards more unhealthy lifestyles and then complain when we are stricken by illness. Furthermore, why do we need to prolong everyone's lives? The world is overpopulated with humans as it is. There is no benefit to humanity, or to the rest of the world (which we usually ignore) to have almost 7 billion of us running around. Yet, we keep working on fertility treatments and cures for every possible disease. Now what's moral about that?
If you believe in a higher power and ascribe to the belief that "man is given dominion over the animals" it logically follows that to use animals in an ethically and humane manner is warranted.
I'm a farmer, Animals have certain rights that descend from the above tenet. They have the right to be cared for, be treated to no cruelty during their lives, to be used kindly.
When I was young, I had a job caring for animals in a hospital. These beasts were used to help surgeons practice operations to save children who would otherwise die. Every one of these animals was treated humanely, anesthetized, the area sterilized, the operating room clean and orderly as it would have been for a human. Animals in the service of mankind is justified
Medical Research on Animals. are misleading.
So many medicines that have been tested on animals and passed have been dangerous to Humans. This shows that results are misleading. The sex of the animal also affects the results of the medicine. but with humans. the sex does not matter.
And say that you wouldn't mind testing on rats because you don't like them?? Thats a bit selfish. and very heartless.. just because you don't like them. means they deserve to be tortured and killed.??
Does that mean. if you don't like your neighbor you wouldn't mind them being tortured and killed?? Oh, But that is different, right? Because humans have more of a chance to be on this earth. I guess thats what a lot of people would say.. But what you don't understand is that animals have feelings too.and they feel pain.. These people who think it is okay to test on animals is heartless!
I think these people need their psychological health is alright. because personally. someone who thinks it is okay even when there are other options are unhuman.. and kinda need to see what it is like for the animal. But I guess a lot of people are ignorant.
just be straight forward.
http://multiplehealthquotes.com
I suggest anyone not sure about the answer to this watch the film earthlings. The last section deals with research on animals . But do make sure you have watched the whole thing so you know what is involved.
Personally, I am positive for Huntington disease and will die from it eventually, but even if there was a drug that could cure me completely I would prefer not to take it if it has been tested on animals.
Why are so many people sickly and unhappy. I have been caring for
animals for fifteen years and I have not been sick (if only thru my
own doing, like forgetting to eat and drink). Please make themselves
ill with their pollution, poisons, and foods. I belive The Good
Creator (God, is you must) would very much take care of us if we took
care of his living beings when in need. We are supposed to have the
mental capacity.
What I want to know is how valid is the info that they get from testing on animals ? My concern is just because a certain chemical/drug has one affect on a mouse does that mean it will have the same affect on a human. There are biological differences there, which is why I refuse to take any pharma meds, I dont like the idea of "whats good for a mouse, is good for a human." Hence my aversion to big pharma, and my zero tolerance policy to their drugs . Do they seriously think I will take their meds because a mouse or monkey had positive results from taking it?
Do they seriously think I will take their meds because a mouse or monkey had positive results from taking it?
- rkm
No, but then that is why animal testing is just part one of the testing process. Animal trials come first then, after extensive testing, it moves on to human trials. This is to minimize the risk to the humans who are the first test subjects. There are differences in anatomy and biology, but there are also remarkable similarities between humans and other animals .
This still does not change my mind about taking meds. I just do not think big pharma ultimately has my best interest in mind, they are more concerned about the money than they are what they are pumping into our bodies. I am still not going to take that crap and feed the machine.
Why not test things on animals ,before giving it to humans?
While I in some ways oppose animal testing it has very little to do with what most of its opposition is against it for. To me ,I see humans trying to find a cure for every single illness that comes along which is why we have more than doubled the average life span of us. While that may be great and all it does nothing for the problem of our population. Gone are the days of if someone got a certain disease it was their time to go. We are in such a frenzy to prolong our lives or the lives of others that we have upset the natural balance of things.
While testing on animals is one thing , what about the cures that are discovered from them. One that I am not sure to many people know about is developement of a cure for AIDS or HIV by studies done on crocodilians. They have injected crocs with the virus and their immune system kills it dead. While I myself have been celibite from about nine years I could care less if they find a cure. I don't wish harm to anyone but once again, sometimes it's just our time to go. If enough people are oppessed to it on the sole reason of animal rights then they should devise a plan of how to make all testing done on humans. To only oppose animal testing without a new plan being offered is leaving details unattended that damage their cause. Since very few people will understand or agree with my opposition to testing because the majority of people are scared of death without a human testing program animals will continue to be tested on.
I am gene postive for Huntington Disease, yet I strongly oppose animal testing - yes I would prefer to just have the disease. How can it possibly be right to induce the disease in millions of animals deliberately for the chance it could lead to a cure? Surely, you would not induce Huntingtons in other people deliberately to see if you could find a cure- so what is the difference? Why should mice be less important?
Animal testing for the reasons of Cosmetology or Beauty is simply cruel. But if we can use animals to save people, to find a cure for a disease, to grow ears or organs to save humans, what is more important? A rat or a person? A person with a family, with intellect, with a soul . If 100 rats were tested, even though this is unfortunate, what if the sacrifice of these 100 rats found a cure for cancer ?
I do think that the animals being tested on for medical purposes should still be given at least a decent life. If they are testing rats, they should let the rats have some space when they aren't being tested, in a decent sized cage where they can go about their rat life as normal as they possibly can.
If your mother, or someone very special to you was dying from a severe illness with no cure, but they were on the verge of discovery for the cure, they just needed to test on a few animals before they could be entirely sure, would you let them sacrifice the animals or would you insist they don't? Would you let them research and let your mother have a chance to live?
We shouldn't be any more cruel than we have to be, but for the purposes of medicine , animal testing is better than dying humans.
I realize mine is an unpopular opinion, but I have seen the evidence! When our plant closed in the 1980s the only job I could find was as a lab tech in bioassay research lab. We did tests on compounds for places like P&G and others, including Top Secret govt studies. Some studies included finding compounds that cause cancer and ones than maight cure cancer. One of my Grandmothers had spent her last months in a cancer research study so I felt proud to carry it on even in a small way. Yes, it was horrid seeing what many compounds did to the animals -- and I vowed to never take that risk with my own family!!! Today, there are some technologies that eliminate some use of animals in studies, but for other studies animals should still be used before a company can use a compound in a product.
At the risk of sounding crass- why is your grandmother's life more improtant than that of an animal?
I'm not the one you addressed but your question proved without a shadow of a doubt the kind of crass person you are. I bet that if your son or daughter were suffering from an terminal illness you'd shoot him or her to end his or her misery. I hope for the betterment of mankind that you commit suicide..
We wouldn't know that marijuana (and other anti-depressants) promote neurogenesis without animal testing. Animal research is crucial in some areas of research, especially concerning the brain.
how come humans never think about what other species feel
put your self in the viewpoint of a rat, how would you feel if you were imprisoned and tested on without your permission??
i'm not biasing my arguments on human welfare because humans never cared about other species, this selfish, self absorbed species should care more about it's surrounding species and environments
if you think humans are being selfish,self absorbed and don't care about the species and the environment because of how the rats feel. Then if you knew someone with a terrible disease that needs cure but only through the medicines that been experimented on the rats, what would you feel? would you still think of the welfare of the rat or the welfare of someone you know. thus, human still be considered selfish if they want the welfare of a person?
don't be mistaken if you think I'm being inconsiderate of the welfare of animals , i'm just trying to say we shouldn't jump into conclusions drastically because it differs on the situation.
no thank you i put out traps if i see any rats..hate, hate, hate them and if that is wrong so be it..if you want them crawling around your house fine but not me ..
Hey, this isn't only about RATS, alright? i bet your a woman, right? If you were male..:/ well, guess what. I LOVE RATS! AND I AM TOTALLY AGAINST ANIMAL TESTING!
I don't believe this issue is cut and dry. Generally we should not test on animals, but I don't think this should be an absolute rule.
On a side note, many of the vegans around here will rightly point out that we do not need to eat animal products to be healthy and that a good vegetarian diet is healthier than one with animal products. The irony is that we know this in large part because of animal testing!
First, we know that a vegetarian diet is healthy primarily because of human case studies. Second, even if animal testing were a part of the discovery, this would not be reason to continue doing so.
If one finds that one's actions are unnecessary and perhaps ethically unjustifiable, it would be illogical to use that prior use as justification for future use, regardless of the gains.
The first argument that PETA uses to argue against animal testing is that many of the drugs tested on animals and moved into human trials end up being harmful to humans. What they don't mention is how many drugs are tested on animals that don't move onto human trials because they're determined to be dangerous.
Here's an overly simplified example. Bleach certainly kills the AIDS virus. Test tube trials would show this is absolutely true. We clearly don't want to inject bleach into somebody to see if it kills them too. We test it on animals first because we'd rather see a dozen dead rats than a dozen dead people.
Computer models and lab tests can certainly help eliminate many dangerous chemicals but in the end there are many that seem fine in the computer but just don't work. I'd rather see a rat die than a person.
Obviously someone was going to come off with this one. We should not be able to force any creature to be tested on for the advancement of humanity. I myself would prefer to see a few hatred, evil people be tested on rather than an animal.
wow. I can't believe how cruel you are. Jerk. Do you have a dog? or cat? or fish? I believe you don't. And if you do, I feel sorry for that animal. Imagine your pet going through the things in the labs. You say "WE clearly don't.blah blah". Whose "we"? You and your horrible mind? In the labs, animals are beaten, torture, gassed, abused, starved, murdered, and cut open while still awake. Take a look at this website. I want you to see what your supporting. Go to BakkaDeliviano.blogpost.com
He has an article and pictures about animal testing
You believe I don't have a dog? Well a lot of people believe a lot of incorrect things. I have a dog and he's treated very well and trained very well. I also have a bit of a mouse problem in my house and therefore have a lot of snap traps scattered around my house. For the record mice really like peanut butter and marshmallows and those live traps are useless.
If you were dying of leprosy you'd have a different view of animal testing. Luckily, due to animal testing you won't ever have to really consider your beliefs. You can sit there with your black nail polish and eye shadow (full of ingredients proven safe by animal testing even if that individual product wasn't) and never have to consider the many diseases that have been treated and cured in part thanks to animal testing. I don't need your blog to tell me that animals suffer for testing. Maybe you should do a little homework on all the human suffering that it's prevented.
Well, I, as a human being, protect God's creation. And I am doing my homework by researching on animal testing for my ethics class.
And I'm glad to hear that your dog is being treated well. Oh, and, just for the record, I don't wear nailpolish. neither eyeliner. It was just for this one shot. And I'm sorry, and respect your decision about you supporting animal testing. However, I don't support it.
We're all welcome to our own opinions. A world of different viewpoints makes the world go round. I am happy that there are people against animal testing because that view can help keep the animal testing well regulated, as it is now, so we don't create unnecessary suffering. So keep up your objections and keep studying ethics because it's important that we're all aware of the ethics of the issue. I'm just saying I am willing to sacrifice a lot of rats to the cause of curing AIDS , or Cancer or Leprosy.
I can see why you support it and I'm not going to fight you to change your ways. I, too, would like to find a cure for AIDS , and cancer and leprosy. If only there was another way that didn't hurt animals :0
Your personal preference may be as justifiable as animal testing. While we all have personal attachments and preferences, it does not lead us to a moral or even a logically consistent argument.
I would rather see a rat be tested with chemicals than my daughter undergo such experiments. But, then, I'd also rather see *your* daughter tested upon than my daughter. See? I can find both options horrible and morally reprehensible, but my personal feelings and attachments would still allow me to make a judgment.
So the question isn't whether or not you have a feeling about who should be spared or given preferential treatment. The question is whether there is a morally consistent justification for animal research. This argument, therefore, will follow the same existential path that the Should We Eat Meat discussion followed.
What should easily be agreed upon, however, is that the majority of clinical research involving the torture of animals is redundant and unnecessary. The reason we cannot arrive there, however, is because of the effort and interest invested in making sure this concept never comes to the public's attention. Remember: most animal testing is not based on ground-breaking, live-saving discoveries. However, we do know, more or less, just how much window cleaner a beagle puppy can swallow before it loses consciousness. We also have a fairly good idea what the impact of high levels of ingested shampoo will have on the unborn children of a mother rat.
As you well said it a lot of the "research" is unnecessary but not all of it. Some of the research is indeed for life saving medicines and as long as a better alternative is not found and as much as I hate it it must continue.